Bye bye demon! What??
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox Feb 09, 2005 8:46 AM EDT |
Shame that FreeBSD is trying to change away from the traditional BSD mascot. Even more interesting when you consider that the mascot for Mozilla is the 10 horned dragon from the book of Revelation. I'd think that would be a more pressing matter. It would be harder for my church to justify the Mozilla logo than the BSD one. There's at least a good historical/technical reason behind the BSD logo. The Mozilla logo is just out of pure secularism and disdain for God (or devil worship.. but most likely the former). |
| salparadise Feb 09, 2005 8:57 AM EDT |
Even more interesting when you consider that the mascot for Mozilla is the 10 horned dragon from the book of Revelation. uh? Where do you get that idea from? I always thought it was a take on godzilla the japanese city stomping rubber monster. |
| Chickenhead Feb 09, 2005 10:14 AM EDT |
This is insanity. As Ned Flanders pointed out, even a box of "Red Hots" has a cartoon devil on the box. Anyone getting offended by that really needs to take some deep breaths. This rising religious insanity has GOT to stop. The BSD logo has existed for longer than both FreeBSD and Linux--what's next? I mean I remember an April 1 joke from last year about "Jesux", where they were going to get rid of "daemon" processes an the like...but that was a joke!! And they're serious about THIS?? |
| PaulFerris Feb 09, 2005 10:19 AM EDT |
while it is kind of funny: about:mozilla [type it in your browser] (the mozilla text embedded in all mozilla-derived browsers I've ever tested), the BSD demon probably needed a good push out of the way -- I mean, the OS might do better business-wise, in a similar vein for why they renamed Free Software to "Open Source" (which go hi-jacked, but that's another story altogether). In other words, I think it's a wise marketing move. Of course, I haven't go much in the way of attachment to the BSD daemon. I did make some jokes about it once though: http://humorix.org/articles/1999/06/virgin-mary/ All in good fun. |
| cjcox Feb 09, 2005 12:55 PM EDT |
salparadise: Uh... the whole Mozilla motif was patterned after a biblical-style prophetic theme.. but you are correct that Godzilla was probably pulled in as well (though there's lawsuit implications if that is the case). Obviously you can get the prophetic (intentionally biblical-like) quotation by doing an about:mozilla inside of Mozilla. The color of the dragon was intentional, as well as the number of horns. All in jest (of the stupid folks that believe in a "god")... not intended to be offensive, but certainly only as viewed from a "mature" secular-only viewpoint. That text (which didn't come out in Paul's response) is: And so at last the beast fell and the unbelievers rejoiced. But all was not lost, for from the ash rose a great bird. The bird gazed down upon the unbelievers and cast fire and thunder upon them. For the beast had been reborn with its strength renewed, and the followers of Mammon cowered in horror. from The Book of Mozilla, 7:15 Which I believe is different from the original quotation... you can google it though. |
| salparadise Feb 09, 2005 1:59 PM EDT |
well there you go you learn something new everyday |
| AnonymousCoward Feb 09, 2005 2:52 PM EDT |
For those not using either Mozilla or Firefox: "And so at last the beast fell and the unbelievers rejoiced. But all was not lost, for from the ash rose a great bird. The bird gazed down upon the unbelievers and cast fire and thunder upon them. For the beast had been reborn with its strength renewed, and the followers of Mammon cowered in horror. "from The Book of Mozilla, 7:15" Confusingly, the "great bird" is Mozilla itself, not Firefox. I think they need a firefox reference from about Mozilla chapter 9. Anyone want to have a go? I'll reply to this with a "seed" version moe closely based on revelation. If that's not (1) intended to allude to Biblical prophecies; and (2) clearly satire then I don't know what is. (-: The beast cjcox refers to (I'm unable to determine how firmly his tongue has been encheeked) is from Revelation chapter 12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=12&v...) which is identified in verse 9 as "the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world". The most rational of the interpretations I've seen of this passage is Historicism, which connects the dragon with the beast mentioned in the book of Daniel (about chapter 8, if memory serves). The woman attacked by the dragon is the genuine church, clean and pure; and the woman riding the dragon is a false church, rich and heavily ornamented. However, the analogy can also be pressed into service reasonably effectively for a Mammon-vs-Free battle, with Microsoft as the harlot and the commerce-polluted State (stupid "IP" laws, notinventedhereism, trade sanctions against FOSS-adopting countries, frivolous/malicious lawsuits, yadda yadda) as the dragon. |
| AnonymousCoward Feb 09, 2005 3:08 PM EDT |
And the great bird brought forth a wondrous egg, blue as sapphire and wrapped in flames like unto the dancing fox. And the followers of Mammon were sore amazed, for the powers of the egg were as lightning, reaching speedily even unto the ends of the Empire to destroy their vile blandishments and anoint the eyes of the people. Nor was the egg subject to the thousands upon thousands and tens of thousands of great plagues which daily struck the amries of Mammon, causing them to babble their innermost secrets or stumble with arms outstretched and sightless eyes. from The Book of Mozilla, 9:1-3 |
| tuxchick Feb 09, 2005 6:26 PM EDT |
Wow. All that in a Web browser. |
| PaulFerris Feb 10, 2005 12:13 AM EDT |
tuxxy: at least they didn't embed a copy of doom in it yet. (FeriCyde quickly tries "about:doom" nope...) That would make it really phat. |
| AnonymousCoward Feb 10, 2005 2:39 AM EDT |
about:doom3 ? (-: They should put some simple funnies into it like "about:time" to show the time and "about:face" to show the default fonts. |
| dave Feb 10, 2005 5:57 AM EDT |
FYI: Daniel 7:24 makes it clear that the dragon (with ten horns) is a representation of ten kings that will rule. Rev. 12 shows the beast's action...The woman was Israel, and the dragon came to devour Jesus as he was born from her. Of course, God rather caught Jesus up into heaven. Revelation 17 describes the beast using even more apocalyptic language. Dave |
| Koriel Feb 10, 2005 7:11 AM EDT |
Revelation 17 describes the beast using even more apocalyptic language. Your talking about Microsoft Press Releases again! |
| AnonymousCoward Feb 10, 2005 1:56 PM EDT |
dave: you're describing one of three competing interpretive systems called futurism; the other two are historicism and praeterism (sp?). I remember being "sore confused" by the elaborate complexities of futurism, which saws off important parts (seven years?) of the gripping saga and teleports it into the future. Praeterism says that it's all over early, assigning to role of antichrist to one minor king (Antiochus IV Epiphanes) in a series of minor kings (the Seleucid). His military ambitions were brought to an abrupt halt by the Roman Senate. Epiphanes means "God revealed" but he was nicknamed "Epimanes" ("the Mad") because of his "abnormal and erratic behavior" - he did some memorably stupid things, and they were apparently characteristic of the man. One factor which causes me to distrust both of those two theories is that they were both devised by Jesuits (dusts off Google, hunts for the names... Ribera and Alcasar), an order who are not exactly reknowned for straightforwardness. The whole picture is somewhat muddied by the presence of several different variants on each of the interpretations. Dang, I wish I had time to dig up some of the juicy details. It makes for fascinating reading. |
| dave Feb 10, 2005 2:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:Jesuits /me dons his tin foil hat. :-) dave |
| dave Feb 10, 2005 2:01 PM EDT |
The historicist view, by the way, was apparantly the dominant protestant view until 200 years ago, when futurism took hold (which, incidentally, was in fact created by a jesuit to deflect anti-roman eschatology). dave |
| pyellman Feb 14, 2005 10:06 AM EDT |
cjcox, I regret that I must waste time challenging your misinformation. (1) I have used netscape/mozilla/firefox since netscape version 0.9 (I still have copies of Netscape 1.0). I can and will personally testify that the association of "Mozilla" with Godzilla predates and overshadows any association with biblical references or 10 horned monsters. I cannot personally picture in my mind any mascots with a 10 horned dragon motif, but I suppose there may be some out there. In any case, dragons with a "Godzilla-like" motif FAR outnumber any such "10 horned versions). You have it backwards in your comment "Godzilla was probably pulled in as well". References: (1a) http://www.hnehosting.com/mirrors/Origin_of_a_Browser/symbol... " Inspired by Jamie Zawinski, as a name for Mosaic Communications' client, the visual representation of Mozilla was created by Nathan Rapheld, who writes: "[Mozilla] was initially a Spaceman Spiff type guy, but the group didn't like that much. We had a big picture of Godzilla that everyone referred to as Mozilla, so I decided to go that route and create a personality with a bit more brains and attitude than his larger counterpart." (1b) The Mozilla Museum at http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mozilla/ (1bi) The Mozilla Museum logos page at http://home.snafu.de/tilman/mozilla/bigmoz.html note the COMPLETE LACK of "10 horned dragons" (2) The risk of legal action being the cause of the move away from the use of Mozilla dragon logo is fact, not speculation. References: (2a) http://msn-cnet.com.com/2100-1032_3-997089.html "Mozilla has treaded the choppy trademark waters before the Phoenix and Firebird controversies. The group and AOL--which owns the intellectual property associated with the Mozilla mascot and brand--have had to negotiate over the years with Toho, the owner of the Godzilla trademark, in order to use the Mozilla name." (2b) http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/08/13/1748247.shtml?tid=154 I used the same Google you mention in your post to locate the above references and information. Peter Yellman |
| cjcox Feb 14, 2005 11:05 AM EDT |
Nothing you have said denies that the image of a Red Dragon (the contemporary version) with the 10 horns wasn't a "jest" (not really jest, not really anything if there's no real "belief" for/against frame of reference) reference to Satan. The posts are too old to be in regard to the latest Mozilla rendition (the one with the 5 point thing... now... what is that called??). Not all things are learned from Google... believe it or not. |
| pyellman Feb 14, 2005 11:26 AM EDT |
The image you refer to was present in the "easter egg" about:mozilla. It was not and is not the Mozilla mascot. Rather than sending us out to search on Biblical quotations, I invite you to type "Mozilla mascot" into beloved Google. Your statement "Not all things are learned from Google... believe it or not." is facially absurb. You do not "learn things from Google", but rather, from the resources Google points, which, like all information, vary in their authority and credibility. I am quite comfortable accepting the authority of the references I have pointed to over your personal, rather bizzare, and unsupported opinions, since those references also match with my personal recollections going back as far as 1995. To reiterate: the 10 horned dragon is not and was never the "Mozilla mascot". The association of Mozilla with Godzilla predates and far overshadows any association with demonic creatures or biblical revelation-style text. The 10 horned dragon and biblically-styled snippets were a semi-inside joke among the developers which emerged some time after the decision to use the Mozilla dragon as a mascot. Period. At this point, you are dangerously close to revealing that you have some other axe to grind than a discussion of BSD's proposed logo change. Why don't you just cut through the crap and let us know what it is? What are these allusions to "other forms of learning". Where are the posts you mention? Peter Yellman |
| cjcox Feb 18, 2005 11:57 AM EDT |
This is getting out of hand. My point is that the image of a Red Dragon with "apparent" 10 horns and pentagram is a much more offensive symbol to some. The old green one would have been easier for some to tolerate. IMHO, the things I've read from google (your apparent source of all truth) seems to indicate everything from a "star" for "revolution", to "star" for "communism" and the history of the "dragon" from everything from "the green lizard was wimpy" to the "red dragon" actually being a "Red T-Rex"... But the whole point to why I posted is that ... that symbolism, real or implied is much, much more offensive than the little cartoon red thing with horns and pitch fork (a non-Biblical view of the devil btw). I don't disagree with the historical (original) Mozilla, except that it really comes from "Mosaic Killer"... thus Mozilla, thus the original green Godzilla-like logo. For obvious reasons I hope, you can see that Green Godzilla is not going to spark concern like a Red Dragon with 10 "spines" on top of a petagram would if you deployed at a church. I like google, and you can learn a lot from it... but obviously it starts getting quite brain dead once you go back before 1995 or so. Granted, the netscape brower and mozilla internal name just barely go back before that really... but the Red Dragon thing is newer.. so not really a matter of going back before google-time (internet boom time). I never sent you out to look for Biblical quotations, though others thought it interesting. I did find it funny finding the various Book of Mozilla passages that are designed to be Bible-prophecy-like... just more fodder preventing religious institutions from wanting to adopt Mozilla (Red Dragon, 10 spines, Pentagram, Passages designed to mimic biblical prophecy). I never really thought of the communism image.. but certainly that could cause problems for some as well. And... thus... we have the whole rebranding campaign. One of the primary goals being a shift of focus away from Mozilla-the-all-in-one... to Firefox and Thunderbird (both fairly easily deployed everywhere). I think the Red Dragon Mozilla logo designer wasn't all too bright... the new Mozilla marketing team understands the problems with the old logo (though still used by the Mozilla-all-in-one as well as the organization logo) and are wanting to portray a better image. Can't say they'll ditch the Red Dragon for the organization logo, but at least with the pentagram gone (from the website)... it could be said it's just a red Godzilla clone. that's better... an now if someone brings up Firefox or Thunderbird, they don't have to wonder as much about any "hidden" implications (be it true or untrue) surrounding the logo choice. Of course, this thread proves that people can come up with tons of misinformation, for or against, almost anything. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!